Engle v. ChipmanEngle v. Chipman
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Campbell
Engle sued Cbipman for legal services claimed to bavе been rendered as agent of Cbipman in matters relating to bis duty as prosecuting attorney of Huron county. His claim was in substance that having decbned to act in certain cases specified, without general authority, this authority was given him, and be acted accordingly. His bill of partiсulars contained ten items of services in criminal prоceedings. He testified that be showed bis bill to Chip-man, who, аfter examining it, told him to file it with the board of supervisors, and if thеy raised any question about allowing the bill be would tell the board the bill was right,— that plaintiff had rendered the services and should have his pay. This was denied by defendant.
The jury found a smаll verdict in plaintiff’s favor, but rejected most of his claim. “We do not think it necessary to go at length into the questions рresented by plaintiff, because, as pointed out by сounsel for defense, the record does not show аny ease made out at all. We find nothing to show that any sеrvices were rendered, nor then value if rendered. Thе fact, if true, that defendant promised to make cеrtain representations to the supervisors is no evidеnce of any recognition of personal liability, and no evidence of the actual rendering of the services. And in the absence of any further showing — inasmuch as it devolves upon plaintiff to show error — we can see nothing to base objections upon.
But we are also of opinion that if the agency created was such as plaintiff claims it to have been, it was illegal. No doubt a prosecuting attorney may employ assistants in various ways not involving his official discretion or responsibility, and this is all that defendant admits he ever did. But the law has very carefully guarded the criminal interests of the State from any interested or unauthorized intermeddling. The prosecuting attorney is a very responsible officer, selected by thе people and vested with personal discretiоn *526intrusted to him as a minister of justice, and not as a mere lеgal attorney. He is disqualified from becoming in any way entangled with private interests or grievances in any way connected with charges of crime. He is expectеd to be impartial in abstaining from prosecuting as well as in prosecuting, and to guard the real interests of publiс justice in favor of all concerned. This discretion is official and personal, and our laws have only allowed its delegation on special grounds, where an аssistant has been provided for by ■carefully guarded legislаtion. It is directly contrary to public policy to allоw any general delegation of a prosecutor’s powers, and the courts cannot recognize аny such .arrangement as forming a basis for personal compensation.
For all these reasons we must decline to disturb the verdict.
The judgment must be affirmed with costs.
The other Justices concurred.